The United States Patent and Trademark Office is tasked with the job of reading patent applications and determining which ones qualify for patent protection. It is a Herculean task. One problem is resources. The Patent Office expects more than four hundred thousand new patent applications to be filed in 2007. To accurately evaluate the merits of all of those purported inventions would cost billions. Add to that the administrative costs of both interacting with all of the relevant lawyers and documenting the entire process, and the required budget is quickly beyond reach.
Information is a second significant impediment to Patent Office review. Patent applications are evaluated early in the life of a claimed technology, and thus at the time of patent review there is typically no publicly available information about, for example, how well the technology has been received by experts in the field, or whether consumers have deemed the technology to represent in some way an advance over existing alternatives. Worse, patent examiners cannot solicit these sorts of credible outsider opinions, not only because for many technologies it is unclear at the early stages who the relevant experts and customers might be, but also because patent evaluation is for the most part a confidential conversation between applicant and examiner, designed to keep an applicant’s work secret just in case the patent application is ultimately denied.
Given all this, it is hardly a surprise that the Patent Office makes mistakes during the initial process of patent review, granting patents that, on their merits, should never have been issued. The real surprise is that these issuance mistakes are almost impossible to reverse.
If all that’s alleged [regarding Khashoggi] is true, WeWork will be in bed with a regime that has expressed brazen disregard for virtually any norm of international politics. They should tread carefully before accepting a majority stake from a fund that’s in effect a Saudi investment vehicle.